Talk:Yoga

Good articleYoga has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 3, 2006WikiProject peer reviewReviewed
April 17, 2007Good article nomineeListed
August 15, 2008Good article reassessmentKept
July 21, 2009Good article reassessmentKept
Current status: Good article

History

Hi, @Chiswick Chap, thank you for the detailed explanation in your edit summary regarding the archaeological evidence being uncertain. Is there a source I can refer to, to read further about that? Swirlymarigold (talk) 23:58, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See Yoga#Indus Valley Civilisation. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 02:59, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the evidence is really flaky and we've covered it in detail. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:09, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing me to the specific section! Swirlymarigold (talk) 00:11, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
very Clean and Clear Explanation. Feeling Good To Use Wikipedia now 😇 103.70.159.254 (talk) 14:40, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 14 September 2025

Change YOGA to yog..the word YOGA is historically incorrect and its cultural appropriation 2405:201:682A:384A:2DB7:3FB0:65BC:6974 (talk) 04:31, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. jolielover♥talk 05:19, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense anyway, there is an implicit "a" after Sanskrit consonants. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:03, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting out History of yoga

The original plan, still sensible, was to have the (long and complex) History of yoga as a separate article, in which case we should have a "main" link here with a brief summary of the key points. Instead, some years ago, the history article was redirected back here as the history chapter here had "growed, like Topsy" and was bigger than the article whose job that was. I suggest we try again, as Yoga is now way too long to read at a single sitting (it's 150 kBytes, over 9,000 words of main text), posing a real and present danger to the article's GA status (because readability and hence readable length are mandatory). In fact, I think we have little choice here, to be honest. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:32, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, in order to keep the actual meaning of yoga centered on one page. There has been a years-long effort on Wikipedia to define "yoga" as simply stretching and some form of modern exercise when, in fact, the mental control of a person's muscle system and movements is an essential part of yoga, union, which in many traditions (Raja yoga, etc.) consists of training the conscious control of muscles, mental images, and the chemical responses called 'emotions'. Removing the history of yoga because of size, and no, 9,000 words is not too long for such an important subject, would remove a major topic of this already diluted article. And why is the unfamiliar word "Soteriology" in the first sentence, that just loses readers rather quickly. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:42, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's wholly mistaken. This split is nothing to do with modern yoga, and derogatory remarks about "stretching" are wholly inapposite on a talk page. The article would take most people a good 50 minutes to sit down and read, which is getting rather a lot, to put it mildly. It is entirely usual on any large topic to have a family of subsidiary articles on complex subtopics, which the history of yoga certainly is: indeed, there is ample scope for extending the history of classical yoga (no postural yoga or vinyasas in sight) to twice or three times its length, and who knows, it might need subsidiary articles of its own. There is also no "dilution" in this article; medieval hatha yoga and the various modern forms are, like it or not, clearly within the yoga tradition, as are the changing goals and methods through the centuries. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:55, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Most people only read the lead, or parts of it, and maybe look at the images and captions. Anyone interested in the entire topic would read the full page, which is not overly long given the importance of the article. Of course Hatha yoga is within the scope, control of a person's muscle system is essential in the full meaning of the practice. The diluted sense that the ability to stretch at will is somehow the totality of 'yoga' has confused millions of people, and Wikipedia should do its best to correct this mistaken perception, which is where keeping the history at this main article assists. Check out the hatnote, it prominently focuses of yoga as exercise when, in fact, yoga is much more than a good workout. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:03, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can see you have a fixed mindset here. Modern yoga is far from being all about exercise, and the modern homonym is at best unfortunate, as scholars like Singleton have noted. The hatnote says nothing relevant to this discussion, which is about organisation for readability, and providing the space to extend the history. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:08, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've copy-edited the gloss on moksha in the lead, that was just woolly-minded circumlocutory bullshit which should have no place in any article. At least we can agree on that, despite your wholly negative and misguided views on modern yoga, and indeed on the extensive work done on explaining and citing it properly here on Wikipedia (and the goals of that work, all of which you have utterly misprised). Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:18, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for making the lead clearer. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:28, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Humans often respond better to constructive remarks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:32, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Typo found.

Under:

History > Origins > Synthesis Model

Paragraph

Paragraph

Quote

Paragraph containing:

"traditions of the eastern Ganges plain are thought to drew from a common body"

Suggest > thought to draw -or- thought to have drawn Initiate1983 (talk) 04:17, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks: I've edited it to read 'thought to be drawn', which is probably the most common phraseology used in this context. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:41, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I feel I should now remove this talk topic. Initiate1983 (talk) 05:05, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need. It will get archived automatically. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:07, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]